Would liberals abort a 'gay' baby?

  • Thread starter Thread starter melensdad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

melensdad

Guest
Palins chose to give birth to a baby with Downs Syndrome and raise it in a loving family. Apparently 90% of all babies with Downs Syndrome are now aborted. Liberals have no problem with doing that.

So let me ask a question, if being “Gay” is genetic, which is what Downs is, then **should a woman be allowed to abort a baby because it is “gay” **according to genetic testing?
 
The pro-choice crowd is absolutist about this freedom and would not interfere with a woman’s decision no matter what the rationale.

Even if it leads to sex-selective abortions like in China and India. Killing the girl babies because they’re girls.

Or even killing gay blobs of tissue.
 
I don’t think conflating Downs syndrome and homosexuality is useful…at all…
 
What is this ridiculous thread? If someone were to make a post as politically one-sided, but in favor of the left, they would be banned. I don’t know why the moderators put up with this constant trolling of MT.
 
Being actively gay is a choice - as is fornication by a heterosexual. Having same-sex attraction is, from the numerous scientifically valid and stable studies I’ve read, possibly a genetic tendency as is alcoholism but not a genetic must.
 
Sounds like a rhetorical OP post to me, i.e. "Please explain how the liberal mind would choose between saving a “gay” baby and destroying a defective blob of “Down’s” tissue.
 
Annn said:
I don’t think conflating Downs syndrome and homosexuality is useful…at all…
Click to expand...
Yes, but that is precisely what the pro-homosex camp has hung their hat on. That genetics is destiny.

I’m trying to find a link, but there was a recorded phone call to the Planned Parenthood donation line from a guy who wanted his donation earmarked for the abortion of black babies. The PP rep didn’t flich and took the money and the request. I don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t take the money for the abortion of so-called gay babies.
 
this is a debate opportunity to exploit an obvious rift between the abortion on demand and gay rights crowds, who are normally allies under the liberal banner.

to advocate abortion on demand necessarily means the right to abort a baby because of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. gays can’t protest the execution of their own kind without infringing on the abortion on demand rights. both sides would twist and dance to evade responding.

its a great idea, but not really for this website.
 
The whole premise is wrong because the only group that consider homosexulity defective is the evangelical conservative crowd. So if it was a pro choice conservative, then yes they would abort but how many of them are there? 😛
 
Is there a test now available for the sexual orientation of fetuses in utero?

Actually the OP question highlights why it is absurd for GLBTQQQs to be pro-abortion.
 
melensdad said:
Palins chose to give birth to a baby with Downs Syndrome and raise it in a loving family. Apparently 90% of all babies with Downs Syndrome are now aborted. Liberals have no problem with doing that.

So let me ask a question, if being “Gay” is genetic, which is what Downs is, then **should a woman be allowed to abort a baby because it is “gay” **according to genetic testing?
Click to expand...
Forum Tips 101:

#1: Provide a credible source for ridiculous claims. (In this case, your claim that about 90% of all babies with Downs Syndrome that are aborted.)
#2: Provide some kind of clarification on the people you’re talking about. (These “liberals,” in this instance. Who are they? Personally, I’ve never met one that would be okay with this sort of thing)
 
melensdad said:
Palins chose to give birth to a baby with Downs Syndrome and raise it in a loving family. Apparently 90% of all babies with Downs Syndrome are now aborted. Liberals have no problem with doing that.

So let me ask a question, if being “Gay” is genetic, which is what Downs is, then **should a woman be allowed to abort a baby because it is “gay” **according to genetic testing?
Click to expand...
The baby wouldn’t because there is no “gay gene” and abortion is never right.
 
Exalt said:
Forum Tips 101:

#1: Provide a credible source for ridiculous claims. (In this case, your claim that about 90% of all babies with Downs Syndrome that are aborted.)
#2: Provide some kind of clarification on the people you’re talking about. (These “liberals,” in this instance. Who are they? Personally, I’ve never met one that would be okay with this sort of thing)
Click to expand...
I can help with #1:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10521836?dopt=AbstractPlus

"They were highest following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome (92 per cent; CI: 91 per cent to 93 per cent) "

As for #2:
It’s probably better to refer to those who advocate unlimited access to abortion as “Pro-Choice” rather than lump then with “Liberals” but honestly, it is a plank in the Democratic Party and has been for some time. 🤷
 
melensdad said:
Palins chose to give birth to a baby with Downs Syndrome and raise it in a loving family. Apparently 90% of all babies with Downs Syndrome are now aborted. Liberals have no problem with doing that.

So let me ask a question, if being “Gay” is genetic, which is what Downs is, then **should a woman be allowed to abort a baby because it is “gay” **according to genetic testing?
Click to expand...
This is really an amusing question. 🙂
Do you think a child is born with a stamp on his forehead reading, '“Look mom, I’m gay.”
Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle and it is clearly listed in the Bible as a sin. Rom.1:18-32, in Lev.
You can spin this problem any way you chose and you will still come up with the same conclusion.
1Cor.6:9-11 reads,
1Cr 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

1Cr 6:10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Cr 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Jesus said, “Go and sin no more.”

God bless,
jean8
 
Has the OP gone into hiding? Why open a thread if they are not going to participate?
 
jean8 said:
This is really an amusing question. 🙂
Do you think a child is born with a stamp on his forehead reading, '“Look mom, I’m gay.”
Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle and it is clearly listed in the Bible as a sin. Rom.1:18-32, in Lev.
You can spin this problem any way you chose and you will still come up with the same conclusion.
1Cor.6:9-11 reads,
1Cr 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
1Cr 6:10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Cr 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Jesus said, “Go and sin no more.”

God bless,
jean8
Click to expand...
The term “homosexual” was invented in 1869 by Karl-Marie Kertbeny (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual) and there is no word in the ancient languages that would accurately translate as “homosexual”. In my opinion, any Bible translation that puts the word “homosexual” in Paul’s mouth is a faulty translation. Most likely the terms used in Romans and 1 Corinthians were aresenakoitai and malakoi which refer to male prostitution and promiscuity. Paul is not talking about people who have same sex attractions who fall in love with others of the same gender. As far as I know, there is no evidence ancient cultures had any concept of orientation. I think sexuality was viewed more in terms of behavior. And just as a side, in reference to the original post, I am gay and do not support abortion so I would consider it to be evil under any circumstances. God bless! 🙂
 
In Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its “spousal significance” but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.
Click to expand...
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top